Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sunday Open Thread

Question: In this environment, is there anything a Tea Party candidate can say or do that would be considered disqualifying for major office?

By Greg Sargent  | September 19, 2010; 9:28 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Open Thread
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

I dunno, but I suspect that actually knowing the definition of "socialism" and using the word correctly might do the trick.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 19, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Morning, All:

I'm going to repet this from yesterday's thread if that's OK.

Not long ago, Frank Rich mentioned a book in his Times column: Invisible Hands by NYU Professor Kim Phillips-Fein. I have just finished the book and I can say without hesitation that this is the most important book I have ever read for understanding the nature of modern American politics and the rise of the Conservative Movement. PLEASE read this book.

Here is the link for the book so you can read about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284904846&sr=1-1

Posted by: wbgonne | September 19, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

A: There isn't anything a TEA Party candidate can say to (or do for) Leftist media elitists that would qualify them for major office.

The partison media demonization campaign against Taxed-Enough-Already (TEA) candidates will continue unabated.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | September 19, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

"Question: In this environment, is there anything a Tea Party candidate can say or do that would be considered disqualifying for major office?"

The political structure has broken down entirely. Thanks largely to the concerted effort of Conservatives, government is no longer respected. In that environment anything goes.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 19, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Q_2.0: Is there ANYTHING a personal mentor can say to disqualify Barry from public office?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5ixmT83JE

A: Rev. Wright should burn a Koran every day until Barry releases his birth certificate and compel Barry to end his Raptor drone campaign against un-Mirandized Afghans.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | September 19, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell canceled her scheduled appearance on Fox Sunday with Chris Wallace, in order to work on her upcoming book.

Why I Dabbled In Witchcraft.

Subtitled:

Wiccans Don't Masturbate.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 19, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Vote O'Donnell: Because there aren't enough Satan Worshipers in the Senate!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 19, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

I've got it!

They could say something that doesn't align with what their followers already (wrongly) believe. Or, they could be supportive of something that their supporters (wrongly) believe is a bad idea.

Either one of those would get them drummed out of the teabagging movement.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 19, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

You got it Jenn -- Case in point, Scott Brown. How dare him vote YES for anything!

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 19, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday's so called values convention was held on the same day as Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for Jews. What would the right say if for instance a like convention for Ds was held on Easter Sunday? And even more bothersome is why an orthodox Jew, Eric Cantor, said absolutely nothing about their insensitive timing. Perhaps b/c he and the GOP are intimidated by these so called values voters. It was terribly insulting.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 19, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Here's the brains of the party:

“We are at a point where our establishment is sliding into policies of such disastrous impact that they will in fact fundamentally challenge the survival of America as we know it,” said Gingrich during his speech to the fifth annual Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC.

“On the one front we have a secular socialist machine led by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and on the other front we have radical Islamists who would fundamentally change this country into a system none of us in this room would recognize,” he continued to thunderous applause.

Gingrich, who has repeatedly acknowledged he is testing the waters in advance of a potential bid for president, largely stuck to red meat issues during his 30-minute speech before a gathering of activists who could play a crucial role in selecting the next Republican presidential candidate.

Gingrich also took aim at Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who recently sent a letter to insurance industry leaders warning them not to "falsely blame premium increases" on the recently passed health care legislation.

“And if she’s going to represent left-wing thought police about Obamacare, she should be forced to resign by the new Congress," he said.


But perhaps the former House Speaker’s loudest applause came when he weighed in on the controversial Islamic center and Mosque proposed to be built near Ground Zero, declaring, “We as Americans don’t have to tolerate people who are supportive of violence against us, building something at the site of the violence.”

“This is not about religious liberty, if they want to build that mosque in the South Bronx, frankly they need the jobs,” he continued. But I am totally opposed to any effort to impose Sharia on the United States, and we should have a federal law that says under no circumstance, in any jurisdiction in the United States, will Sharia be used in any court to apply to any judgment made about American law.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/18/gingrich-declares-dual-threat-of-terrorists-and-dem-establishment/

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 19, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Back to your question, Greg: The Conservative assault on government was well-advanced by 2008 but the seminal event was when John McCain picked Sarah Palin. That broke the dam and opened up national office to utterly unqualified ignoramuses. This, I predict, will be McCain's enduring legacy: that he defiled the American electoral process. A fundamentally un-American act and a complete lack of patriotic honor. McCain should be ashamed.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 19, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

A question: With Murkowski running as a write-in for Alaska Senator does that mean the Democrat, Scott McAdams, has a legitimate shot?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 19, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

For anyone interested, people have been organizing on facebook to get to Washington for the Colbert/Stewart. Carpools, buses, etc.

It's looking like it's gonna be a good time. The way I think this event is important is to make more people aware of what those two do. The more people that tune into them, the more people can be made aware of the kind of brainwashing propaganda that's going on over at Fox and the rest of the right wing.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 19, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne, I've been looking at polling this morning for various candidates and McAdams still trails both Miller and Mukowski. I'm working on generating support for a few candidates every week, hopefully Greg doesn't mind, in the form of $$ bombs, all through ActBlue. I'm not ready to commit to McAdams yet but I'll keep watching.

I've come up with 3 candidates for this coming week and will provide links and reasoning for all three tomorrow. For one of them I can't find any polling numbers so am waiting to call his campaign office tomorrow to see if they have any internal polling.

I'm in campaign mode !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm also on the way to the beach in about 30 minutes. Enjoy your Sunday everyone.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 19, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

"A question: With Murkowski running as a write-in for Alaska Senator does that mean the Democrat, Scott McAdams, has a legitimate shot?"

Yeah, I'm kind of curious about that, too. Nate Silver has been saying that he thinks Murkowski has a real shot as a write-in candidate, but I couldn't find anywhere on his site his statistical predictions for a 3-way race. I'm guessing that's because there hasn't been any polling yet.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

"Question: In this environment, is there anything a Tea Party candidate can say or do that would be considered disqualifying for major office?"
---------------------------------------------

It depends on who you ask, apparently.

Posted by: CalD | September 19, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Tbe Big Dog's got it right:

Clinton told Bob Schieffer on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the conservative wave sweeping the country “reflects the feeling of a lot of Americans that they are getting the shaft.”

“The people who caused these problems, first of all the banks that were responsible for the financial meltdown, they got well again and everybody’s got money again whose in that business. But ordinary people don’t. And they think the government didn’t exercise appropriate oversight, everybody there still got a job, and health insurance and can make a home mortgage payment and send their kids to college and they can't. So, there is a general revolt against bigness which in the case of the Republicans is always directed more against the government than private sector,” Clinton said. “It’s totally understandable.”

Most Tea Partiers (and the Middle Class) have been shafted by the policies that let banks go wild and promised an ''Ownership Society.''

Sadly, by going along with the Becks and the Palins, Tea Partiers are playing right into the hands of the shafters.

Posted by: Clear_Eye | September 19, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

imsinca: sestak, feingold, coons and boxer deserve our help and Bill White is looking very competitive for Texas Governor. I am not all that worried about Murray. we need to get behind sestak and feingold especially b/c they seem to be struggling and are two of our best Ds representatives in Congress.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 19, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

unless mcadams moves up to 30% in Alaska polls in the next 30 days, Alaska D voters might seriously need to support Murkowski just like Ds in Fla will need to get behind Crist. Their alternatives are just way too extreme to presume otherwise and too much to fatham for 6 years in the US Senate. Miller's comments that he as a lawyer believes that SS and Medicare are unconstitutional are truly frightening.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 19, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

unless mcadams moves up to 30% in Alaska polls in the next 30 days, Alaska D voters might seriously need to support Murkowski just like Ds in Fla will need to get behind Crist. Their alternatives are just way too extreme to presume otherwise and too much to fatham for 6 years in the US Senate. Miller's comments that he as a lawyer believes that SS and Medicare are unconstitutional are truly frightening.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 19, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Why is the question limited to the Tea Party - and not just any candidate ???


Is Linda Murkowsky trying to torpedo Sarah Palin in Alaska - sinking Joe Miller - just for revenge???


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Re; Texas Governor's race.

Purely anecdotal, but I have yet to see a Perry bumpersticker/yard sign, etc. I even saw a couple White signs is uber-conservative Highland Park in Dallas.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 19, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

there is certainly a grudge match b/w Palin and Murkowski, but more importantly Murkowski understand how dangerous Miller's positions railing against SS and Medicare which he would like to repeal are, to Alaskans and all seniors.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 19, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Ladies

I did not apply the word "socialist" to Bernie Sanders - he did.


Bernie Sanders ran for the House as a socialist - and won.


When Sanders won a Senate seat, he decided he wanted committee assignments and the benefits of caucusing with the majority - which he always did with the democrats - but he made it easier for everyone by calling himself a "democratic socialist"


That has little to do with the acutal lables Bernie Sanders has put on himself over the years.

AT LEAST Bernie Sanders has been HONEST with the voters - and told them exactly what he thought.


IN SHARP CONTRAST, Obama's 2008 platform is regarded as a bunch of deceptions and lies - and one that Obama quickly abandoned.

NOT my problem.


The leftists are allowed to have their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

First off, it's "Lisa" Murkowski, not "Linda."

Secondly, I believe the reason that most people run for office is they want to serve in elected office, for whatever reason. Especially incumbents, many of whom believe elected office is their RIGHT.

If Murkowski manages to win, I imagine the FU to Palin will make it sweeter, but I kind of doubt that's the ONLY reason for running as a write-in.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 19, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

From the previous thread:

"Still don't have a point from you.


A rational point -


not one based solely on the desire to attack someone else."

-------------------------------------

And I'm still waiting for you to admit that you were WRONG. Although it's interesting to me that you see someone correcting your falsehoods as an "attack". You must've had a rough time getting through school.

Now, stop trying to change the subject. This has nothing to do with Obama, this has nothing to do with where Sanders is on the political spectrum, this has nothing to do with what the NY Times said, this has nothing to do with your defense mechanisms.....this has to do with the fact that you specifically claimed TWO things (and I'll type slower for you so maybe you can keep up):

1)Sanders appeared on the ballot in VT as a "Socialist"

2)Sanders was listed and identified officially in the House of Representatives as "Socialist" - as you said an "S" after his name instead of a "D" or "R".

I've now provided two links that definitively prove that those things are not true: one showing that no one has appeared on a VT ballot as "Socialist" in over 50 yrs and that Sanders was always listed as an "Independent" when he ran; the second was a link to the US House of Representatives Clerk Office showing that Sanders is listed in the official record as "Sanders, Bernard - (I-VT)".

So, are you going to admit that you were wrong on the FACTS or are you going to accept being classified as a "LIAR"?

(and BTW, while you're at it, don't forget to also admit that you were wrong about the Presidential Oath of Office)

------------------------------------

Looks like you've decided that you'd rather be a "liar" than to admit your mistake. Fine by me.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

there were 2 Perry really ugly looking signs in my conservative neighborhood and at least 100 White signs. Too bad the election is not decided by signs or bumper stickers. The Houston Chronicle was totally ticked that Perry has stiffed all editorial bds in the state and their headline today reads: Time for a Change; Texas can't afford 4 more year of Perry's leadership.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 19, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

lms, enjoy the beach. Great thing to do on a Sunday...if you have a beach.

Please do let us know about the $bomb. And yes, let's do it through Act Blue.

Good suggestions so far by leichtman. Maybe Scott Harper in IL(13)? He's running against the horrible Judy Biggert and he can beat her.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 19, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Mary - that's not the issue, and you know it.

You claimed that Sanders appeared on the ballot as a candidate for the Socialist party. You further claimed that he was listed in the congressional directory as a socialist. Both claims are false, but you're not enough of a man to own up to it, which is why from here on out you're "Mary" to me - and hopefully, to everyone else.

Lastly, Bernie himself says he's a Democratic Socialist, not a run-of-the-mill plain vanilla Socialist. There is a difference, Mary, which you would know if you were in the least bit informed about anything whatsoever, which you aren't. Democratic Socialists are the ones who, while supporting some aspects of small-"s" socialism, such as public health and retirement benefits, do not advocate that goverment own the means of production, i.e., the government nationalizes, takes over, and runs the companies themselves. That's what large-"S" socialists advocate, and Bernie isn't one of them.

So we can chalk up your latest, Mary, to either the aforementioned lack of knowing anything about anything, or as just another example of you being a liar.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 19, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne 11:11 AM

On Murkowski


Who knows how many votes Murkowski can take from McAdams -


One could take the numbers from the primary - and take a guess - and compare that to how many votes the democrats usually get.

I think the main take-away is that the Sarah forces still have an on-going battle with the Murkowski people in Alaska


I don't believe that many people will take kindly to this spiteful move on the part of Murkowski.


Remember that Murkowski was orginally appointed to the US Senate by her father - and at some point that is not going to be helpful to her.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

The political structure has broken down entirely. Thanks largely to the concerted effort of Conservatives, government is no longer respected. In that environment anything goes.

____________________________________


There is very little "political structure" in this country at ALL - on the side of both parties.


What you have is a bunch of ENTRENCHED INCUMBENTS who don't care about anyone or anything - they just want to protect their little territory. This is true for both sides.


Those entrenched pols do not hold on as a result of "political structure" but by gerrymandered districts, and the advantages of fundraising gained by holding office.


Those offices are NOT competitive - and they don't want them to be.


IN THE MIDDLE - there is 15 - 20% of the offices in the country which are competitive between the parties.


It is in this 15-20% of the offices in which the parties PRETEND TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY.


They USE all the partisans to fight over those small set of offices - some of which actually mean the majority at some level of government - and some do not mean anything to anything.

So - "political structure" - broken down?

It is ALREADY BROKEN DOWN - IT IS ALREADY PATHETIC.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

@everyone,

Things to notice about the PlumLine's newest troll (previously the notorious troll 37th&OStreet on the Fix):

1) Rarely gives links to backup his information.

2) Claims he is being attacked all the time.

3) Changes the subject when he is wrong.

4) The more challenged he is, the more CAPSLOCK, and the longer the posts.

5) Posts consecutive posts to no one in the middle of the night when he is really feeling insecure.

6) Deals in opinion, not fact, but doesn't know the difference.

7) Claims he is being pursued by a liberal cabal who is being paid by someone to defeat 37th.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

ALASKA PRIMARY


Democrats McAdams got 18,000 of 36,000 total democratic votes


Miller got 55,000 of 109,000 total Republican voters

So that give you an idea of the total amounts of voters on each side.


In 2008 a Presidential election year, 326,000 votes were cast


In 2006 - 234,000 voter were cast statewide, with a Governor's race but no US Senate race that year


In 2008 McCain and Palin had 59% of the vote - Obama had 38%


The 2008 split between the parties may not be a good indication of the actual split between the parties because it was Palin's home state.


The 2006 election had 4 Governor's candidate Republican had 48%, the democrat 40%.


So - one can make their own guesses from here

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Apologies if this has been posted previously.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter/thats-racist-bullshit.html

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

Will you PLEASE stop trying to start fights on this blog


You have already engaged in many hostile activities - almost on a DAILY BASIS.


And you have been bringing your old friend here as well - supposedly to start fights on this blog.


You know what - just state your opinion on the topics and leave it AT THAT.

Don't try to fight with other people -

And if you have standards for posting - STICK TO THEM YOURSELF


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Well, as long as THEY are against all current solutions to our problems, and they have none of their own, they are good to go.

Posted by: dozas | September 19, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat 12:35 PM


I have to tell you that you are WRONG


According to your logic that makes you a LIAR as well.


Bernie Sanders ALWAYS called himself a SOCIALIST.

What is concerning - is YOU really do not have a point here - you are not ADDING to the discussion here.


ALL you are doing is trying to start a fight on this blog -


And you are trying to harass other posters.

IN your case, the Cat is dead - and YOU are braindead as well.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

12Bar - also:

8) Gets very OFFENDED when English words don't have the meaning he wishes they had (i.e. "fact" and "faith" do not mean the same thing).

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 19, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

More about the troll:

9) Attempts to recast anyone who disagrees with him as "starting fights on the blog". It's never about facts: it's always about the troll.

10) Is constantly OFFENDED, so everyone should back off and not challenge him.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

s'cat, thanks for the Ebert link. He's really gotten sharp in the past few years.

And just wow on the likes of D'Amato being the voice of reason on Fox and in the GOP. Al is no shrinking violet, and no liberal.

The mundane truth: Fox is probably the single most pernicious force in this country. And that's saying something with Wal Mart, oil companies, and insurance companies as competition.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 19, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Shorter STRF:

"SQUAWK!!!! SQUAWK!!!! SQUAWK!!!! SQUAWK!!!"

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

@BG: He's really gotten sharp in the past few years.

Agree. His twitter feed is one of my faves.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArk 12:32 PM


OK but there is another scenario here -

First, she makes a headache for Joe Miller instead of supporting him


Second - she runs the risk of NOT winning, and throwing the race to the democrats.


Murkowski was appointed by her father - and that is going to hurt her.

But the other element - Murkowski would prefer to NOT have Miller in office for the next six years - she would rather have her and her allies control the Republican party in Alaska.


So making Joe Miller lose has implications for the internal balance within the Alaska Republican party.


Just like within the democratic party - many people in 2008 didnt want Hillary to win because those people would be running the show - NOT a different crew.


When it came to the Superdelegates, those calculations were considered.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

11) Loves to dish it out, but just can't take it.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat 1:22 PM


Go TRY to make a real point about something


Im not going to start looking up the history -


If the campaign said he was a Socialist, he was - the substance is the substance.

Sounds like you prefer the LIES over the substance.


Which is it - do you prefer a lie or the substance ???


,

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Just listened to the video that cat pointed: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter/thats-racist-bullshit.html

Good for Al for calling out the obvious racist undertone.

This has nothing to do with the above, but I wonder how postal workers like being called out as unskilled workers who should be pushed back down by market forces to where they belong--driving cabs. Or to even less, if the Nigerians don't go home.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Had a good laugh a minute ago. Email from Media Matters about something stupid Palin did. They refer to her as:

Sarah Palin (R-Twitter).

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 19, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"If the campaign said he was a Socialist, he was - the substance is the substance."

You keep attacking that strawman, big boy.

"Squawk!!! Squawk!!!! Squawk!!!! Squawk!!!"

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

So, what did Karl Rove say about Miss I-dated-a-witch-but-never-joined-a-coven?

Was it something about "coming clean about her background" and doing it "fast"? Probably has something to do with the backlog of various video clips being doled out by the likes of Bill Mayer (and others, I'll bet).

What a dilemma for Miss O'Donnell. Either load the gun that's going to shoot you--or wait for someone else to load the gun that's going to shoot you.

When will Glenn Beck announce that her candidacy is dead, like he did with JD Hayworth?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

12Bar - who is calling postal workers out? I haven't heard about that, but it doesn't surprise me. Since no one is allowed to skim a huge profit off the top of the US Postal Service, obviously it is an evil and incompetent institution - never mind that its rates are lower and it performs notably better than some of the private carriers (I'm lookin' at you, FedEx). In fact, I think it's safe to say that the USPS efficiency rate - that is, the percentage of mail that is delivered to its intended recepient within the time frame it's supposed to get there - probably is somewhere in the 99.99% range.

I challenge anyone to name any private company that achieves a similar efficiency.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 19, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"This has nothing to do with the above, but I wonder how postal workers like being called out as unskilled workers who should be pushed back down by market forces to where they belong--driving cabs. "

Yeah, my jaw dropped when he said that. My grandmother worked for years as the Postmaster for a very small town in Vt. I'm pretty sure there was very little market for taxis around there.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest 1:04 PM

If one works off these numbers - let's guess that the turn-out this year will be halfway between 2008 and 2006 - an energized year but not as much as Presidential election year.


That projection would be 280K total votes.


If the democrat McAdams gets 40% that would be 112K - leaving about 168K votes remaining.


If Murkowski holds onto JUST her voters in the primary - that would be 53K -

Leaving 115K voters for Miller.


OUCH THAT IS CLOSE


Miller has to increase turn-out - and make Murkowski seem like a spoiler.


When I started these calculations, I didn't think it was this bad. Murkowski's own primary voters COULD be 19% of the total general election vote total.


If the democrat McAdams pulls in 40% - then there is a slim slim margin for Miller.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

@BG: "Email from Media Matters about something stupid Palin did."

Did you need to upgrade your mailbox capacity to handle the deluge?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn,

Watch the video if you haven't. It's well worth the time.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

@cat,

It made me think of the tiny post office in Copperton, Utah where the whole town of 200 people make it a point to use the little p.o. The postmaster and the single mail carrier lived in town, and they were our friends and neighbors.

I wonder how these two white folks would take to being called unskilled workers who ought to be driving cabs, or less. Not that there were any cabs in Copperton. There wasn't even a gas station.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar: "I wonder how these two white folks would take to being called unskilled workers who ought to be driving cabs, or less."

Precisely.

Of course, the rightwing doesn't consider them "real" Americans: not only are they civil service employees, they're UNION. Double whammy.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

@cat,

Oh, definitely, I got the triple whammy--black, civil service and Union. What is disheartening is that this GOP strategist, Jack Burkman, would feel so free to spout this "racist bullsh!t" (D'Amato) on national TV. Burkman acts like he's back in the era of Jim Crow, where racism is just taken for granted.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Greg

We have a series of comments from

schrodingerscat

and

12BarBlues


which are NOT aimed at ANY civil discussion - and they don't even pretend to talk about any topic.


Instead, these comments are aimed at STARTING A FIGHT on this blog.


12Bar in particular has been going over to the Fix, and RECRUITING her friends - with the idea to come over to this blog and start fights with other posters.


Both are seeking to CREATE A HOSTILE ATMOSPHERE ON THIS BLOG.

It is clear and simple - 12Bar is ENCOURAGING people to foster to the hostile atmosphere as well.

Apparently the liberals have adopted a scorched-Earth policy (against all their professed desire to protect the Environment)

I appeal to you to stop all these behavior before the other side RESPONDS, then the other side responds - and there is a massive fight - which Im sure few people want.

.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

12) Appeals to the blog owner to protect him from the liberal cabal of paid posters. Uses the Mike Tyson defense "protect me before I do something really bad".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat 1:55 PM

You are a LIAR - Al D'Amato is a right-winger and he was defending the postal workers - AND the Nigerians.


Would you please STOP lying on this blog ???


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


Do you have anything else to say today - besides

1) Harassing other posters


2) Encouraging other people to harass and ignore other posters


3) Ganging up on some Rant of RACIST charges about Nigerian cab-drivers.

I'm not exactly sure what the racist charge is - except characterizing cab-drivers as Nigerian.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

They could say they're a member of the Tea Party. Except for Joe Miller, I don't believe anyone can do that and win a general election in the Senate. House is different because of heavy gerrymandering.

Posted by: michaelh81 | September 19, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

2) Encouraging other people to harass and ignore other posters
-----------------------------
Ignoring other posters, I assume you mean yourself, well--that is the real problem, isn't it.

There's nothing so humiliating as being irrelevant.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"You are a LIAR - Al D'Amato is a right-winger and he was defending the postal workers - AND the Nigerians."

I never said anything specifically about Al D'Amato. I made a generalization about rightwingers based on the behavior of the republican strategist. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule.

I'll own up and say that I was "wrong" to overgeneralize and I should've added a disclaimer to my statement. My bad.

See? That wasn't so hard, was it? You should try it sometime.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

So simply the mention of "Nigerian Cab Drivers" - that is racist ?

What about "Keynan President"


Is it OK to say "Keynan President" but NOT OK to say "Nigerian Cab-Driver"

When is it OK to USE AN ADJECTIVE ???

Most of the postal workers at my post office are white - and with a long line, I see them get up and take a break.


After a few minutes, someone else comes to take their place.


During this time, I usually COUNT how many postal workers I see in the back - all of which could come to the front.


Usually only one or two positions at the counter are manned - when there are five positions there.

(I guess you want to call me SEXIST now for using the word "manned")

The thing is this: In a private store or company, you NEVER see lines that that - with workers doing something else -

ALWAYS in other stores, people come out to help the customers and the customers are taken care of FIRST.

That is the point.


SchoedingerCat I HAVE A POINT.

I suppose if the Post-Offices around the country took CARE of the customers LIKE EVERY OTHER RETAIL STORE, comments like the one on the tape would not be made.

So the comment was really about JOB PERFORMANCE, NOT RACE.


Isn't that TRUE ????


HOW MUCH of the comment was about JOB PERFORMANCE???


I know you LOVE TO CALL SOMEONE A RACIST - (REALLY makes you happy, right ?)

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"There's nothing so humiliating as being irrelevant. "

No joke. Just ask Romney and Pawlenty.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

4) The more challenged he is, the more CAPSLOCK, and the longer the posts.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat 2:22 PM


NO Schrodinger you said "right-wingers"


That means you LIED - especially when you had D'Amato there - defending THE HONOR OF ALL POSTAL WORKERS AND NIGERIAN CAB-DRIVERS.

Im sure that D'Amato was also defending all cab-drivers who don't like to be sterotyped as "Nigerian"

NOT exactly sure where ANY of this is really racist -


Everyone knows there are a great deal of WHITE postal workers - and the commenter was telling the WHITE postal workers to go drive cabs --


NOT sure how that is RACIST.


BUT YOU LOVE CALLING SOMEONE A RACIST, right ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"During this time, I usually COUNT how many postal workers I see in the back - all of which could come to the front"

I call bu*lsh*t. There's no way you can count.

"I know you LOVE TO CALL SOMEONE A RACIST - (REALLY makes you happy, right ?)"

Where did I call anyone "racist" in regards to the link? It was D'Amato and the lawyer who said that.

C'mon, STRF. Show me EXACTLY where I accused ANYONE of being a racist....or I can just add it to the growing list of lies that you spout. I'll be waiting.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Schoedinger


I think, on the tape, ALL postal workers, white and black, were treated EQUALLY, so that part was not racist.


The only questionable part was "Nigerian cabdrivers"

AND by that - the person was trying to make the comment that the Nigerians were illegal aliens - who are allowed into this country.


So yes, that part - saying Nigerian - was a sterotype of cabdrivers -


But the point was that the government was allowing immigrants to take the cab-driving jobs - when Americans should have them.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Rove said O'Donnell has more than one issue in her past to explain and to declare them all untrue or to ignore them is "a legitimate campaign strategy" though perhaps not a winning one.

"In southern Delaware, where there are a lot of church-going people, they're probably going to want to know what was that all about," Rove said of the witchcraft remarks. "And again, she said it on television when she went on the -- on the Bill Maher show. And I -- my view is she can't simply ignore it. She's got to deal with it and explain it and put it in its most sympathetic light and move on."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/19/campaign-magical-explanation-odonnells-witchcraft-dalliance/
-------------------------------
More than one issue in her past to explain, per Karl.


Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Someone mentioned above the media's prenicious mischaracterizations of TP members/candidates.

There is not much need for the media or anyone else to exaggerate the membership or their beliefs when it is so evident from their candidates on down to the "grassroots".

Particularly, what is a mischaracterization about membership when the vast/overwhemling majority of them are older, white, middle class conservatives? That is hardly an over-the-top description. I'm not interested in the minority of that group-just the major part of it.

Now, take that description and compare it to the *rest of the Country* where half the populace is younger, there are large ethnic minorities and a growing underclass/upper-level poor.

Now, unless they have some kind of outreach programs that I'm not aware of, the TeaBaggers will be splitting the diffference with the other bastion of the white, older, middle class- the GOP. Neither one is poised to gain amongst the second group I mentioned.

And, as evidenced by Montana's and Ginrich's strident red-meat obfuscations and demogaugery, they only seem to be marginalizing themselves even more.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 19, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

anybody with complaints about Al D'
Amato calling the GOP strategists words "racist bullsh!t", please email Al:

Al@Damato.com

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat 2:37 PM


Your very act of posting that link is to call attention to the RACIST charges.

So you are doing it.


.


AND you had D'Amato right there - you have NO EXCUSE for the sterotyping -


Why? Because D'Amato is a WHITE MALE he should have certain views??


Is that what you want to do? Sterotype all right-wingers as white males??


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

""NO Schrodinger you said "right-wingers""

I know. I admitted as much. Maybe I should've put it in ALLCAPS so you could read it.

"That means you LIED"

I think you need a dictionary:

"a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth;"

I admit that I overgeneralized and I owned up to it. There was no intent. Now in your case, you were presented with the truth and you intentionally and willfully continued to stand by your statements. THAT is lying.

"NOT exactly sure where ANY of this is really racist - "

Take it up with D'Amato.

And I'm still waiting for you to show me where I accused anyone of being "racist". C'mon....I don't want to add a 3rd incident of lying to your resume.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse


12BarBlues


Make a point on a topic - and MAYBE you will be relevant.


At this point, you have been completely IRRELEVANT for a few months now


It has been months since you made a relevant comment on ANY topic -


All you do is make hostile comments.


Go back to the Fix.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Shorter STRF: I was wrong and you didn't actually say what I accused you of saying.

Therefore, "SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!!"

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Representative Mike Pence, R-In. is the big winner in the 2010 Values Voter Summit Presidential Straw Poll at this year's meeting with former Governor Mike Huckabee, R-Ar, coming in second, followed by former GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/18/pence-surprise-winner-values-voter-straw-poll#ixzz100G0U0m4

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse


SchoedingerCat writes:


I think you need a dictionary:

"a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth;"


__________________________________

Apply THIS to ALL your charges about who LIED.


Seriously man


___________________________________

I hate to DOUBLE-BACK THE LOGIC ON YOU.

Apply that standard to YOUR charges of lying.


So, ALL your comments were INTENTIONALLY UNTRUE - because you knew perfectly well that there was no deliberate intent to deceive.


So, by that standard, your comments are all INTENTIONAL ACTS TO DECEIVE.

Thank you.


You can go now.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Schoedinger says

"NOT exactly sure where ANY of this is really racist - "

Take it up with D'Amato.


____________________________________

But you are posting the link - and REPEATING the charge - taking the position of D'Amato


I will tell D'Amato what I think when I see him - as he knows I ALWAYS DO.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Schoedinger says

"NOT exactly sure where ANY of this is really racist - "

Take it up with D'Amato.


____________________________________

But you are posting the link - and REPEATING the charge - taking the position of D'Amato


I will tell D'Amato what I think when I see him - as he knows I ALWAYS DO.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!!! SQUAWK!!!!"

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

More about the voting at the conservative Values conference:

Pence, chair of the House Republican conference, received 24% of the vote, while last year's winner, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, came in second with 22%. Mitt Romney was third with 13% of the vote.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich received 10%, and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin finished a distant fifth with 7%.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, another potential 2012 GOP hopeful, received only 1% of the straw poll vote.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"Of course, the rightwing doesn't consider them "real" Americans: not only are they civil service employees, they're UNION. Double whammy."

s'cat,

Guess what? The above is bullsh^t too. Congrats!!!

btw...There's a new entry over at Wiki re: your 2-thread epic "VT/IorS?" feud w/STFR.

It's listed under "Fools' Errand."

Posted by: tao9 | September 19, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Now, I've heard it all. STRF talks to Al D'Amato and goes to the post office. I thought he never left his keyboard because he's on here 24/7.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

@Chuck: Particularly, what is a mischaracterization about membership when the vast/overwhemling majority of them are older, white, middle class conservatives?

Well, it's the same logic that allows them to claim that you're "smearing" one of their candidates by quoting them verbatim.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

And I'm still waiting for you to show me where I accused anyone of being "racist". C'mon....I don't want to add a 3rd incident of lying to your resume.

___________________________


Posting the link is the moral equivalent of repeating the charge.


If you don't like it, tough.


That is NOT a lie - it is substance.


_________________________________

It is interesting - that when the UNDERLYING SUBSTANCE IS TRUE, you are still attempting to characterize a comment as a lie.


For instance - the point being made was Bernie Sanders is a Socialist - and identified himself as such - which he did.


Every campaign Sanders had made no secret of his socialist views - Sanders own views.


So you are trying to quibble about the details - NOT substance.


The substance was CORRECT.


So, it is REALLY difficult to LIE when the substance is correct - or to put it the way your dictionary does - if the substance is correct, there is NO intent to deceive.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse


12BarBlues

You would be surprised - but I am not going to tell you ANYTHING - because you will repeat it over and over and over again


So I don't want to read it - over and over and over again.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!!"

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"Guess what? The above is bullsh^t too. Congrats!!!"

Yeah, I know how much the righties luv them some government bureacrats and some union members.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

That D'Amato video must have really hit home from the reaction.

For those who haven't seen it--here's the link:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter/thats-racist-bullshit.html

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

R'uh r'oh:

"Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says illegal immigrants do essential work in the U.S. and that he has firsthand knowledge of that — because they fix his house."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100919/ap_on_bi_ge/us_powell_illegal_immigrants

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat :

I think you need a dictionary:

"a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth;"


_______________________________

By your definition, you were the one lying all Friday and Saturday.


I'm sorry that I have to break that news to you.

________________________________


OK, you finally caught me in a lie - Im not sorry.


.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Here's version 1.0 of the O'Donnell defense:

During an appearance Sunday at a GOP picnic in southern Delaware, O'Donnell said she was in high school when she dabbled in witchcraft. She asked the audience: "How many of you didn't hang out with questionable folks in high school?"

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Great news on the healthcare front:

http://www.ajc.com/news/new-health-care-rules-616927.html?cxtype=ynews_rss

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Guess that Christine O'Donnell is listening to PART of Karl Rove's advice--the part that said "don't deny it". All assuming, of course, that some witch or warlock doesn't come out with more.

Now, when does she get to the part about disclosing WHAT ELSE she wishes wouldn't become public.

Do you think that Bill Mayer will disclose a video every Friday? Only 5 days to go?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah, I know how much the righties luv them some government bureacrats and some union members."

s'cat,

Got any numbers, citations...anything even anecdotal perhaps that could back up the aggregate.

If not your assertions are worth as much as STRF's.

Posted by: tao9 | September 19, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"Here's version 1.0 of the O'Donnell defense"

Or you can try the old "blame the messenger" defense:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/odonnell_witchcraft_comment_ta.html

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Grover Norquist, co author of the GOP Contract with America:

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

He has also stated, "Cutting the government in half in one generation is both an ambitious and reasonable goal. If we work hard we will accomplish this and more by 2025. Then the conservative movement can set a new goal. I have a recommendation: To cut government in half again by 2050".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

@Tao: "Union approval varies widely by political party affiliation -- it is 71% among Democrats compared with 34% of Republicans and 49% among independents."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142007/Americans-Approval-Labor-Unions-Remains-Near-Record-Low.aspx

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Murkowski, Brewer, Fiorina, Whitman, Palin, O'Donnell, Angle, Haley, Jindal, Scott, Collins, Snowe, et al.

It looks like the left will eventually have to come up with some new cliches to describe the Republican party. The one about old white men and racists doesn't play too well anymore. Maybe they should stop running old white men against some of these Republicans.

I recall one liberal African-American contributor at the Fix who continually posted Nikki Haley's "real name". But that wasn't race-baiting because the poster was a black liberal. It was all good, because if those 'bufords' in South Carolina weren't too stupid to realize that Nikki Haley (and Tim Scott) weren't really "one of them" then they might lynch them, but they certainly wouldn't vote for them.

The new trial balloon is "they're all stupid!" Of course, if you fire back on Alvin Greene, Maxine Waters, Shirley Jackson Lee, or Hank Johnson, then you're a racist. Notice how we haven't seen too many stories here about why Charlie Rangle and Maxine aren't being held accountable by their constituents. In liberal-world, some groups just aren't as "white?" as the elites and so cannot be held to similar standards.

Remember when Palin gave a shout out to a friend, a paraplegic in a wheelchair: "Stand up, Chuck!" ??? That was Palin wasn't it? I mean . . . isn't she the stupid one?

We keep hearing about how the liberals will take over as the demographics of the country change---maybe because most of the "new" Americans will be dependent on some form of government assistance. ???
Won't it be strange to watch when this idea becomes yet another liberal fantasy turned on its head. Put away the shoelaces and sharp objects. Put a suicide watch on Liam.

Posted by: Brigade | September 19, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

In his interview on CNN, [Jim] DeMint also looked to the 2012 presidential race, saying he’d support a candidate like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

“I'm looking for someone that's almost like a Governor Christie in New Jersey who's willing to tell people the hard truth that the federal government can't do anymore, we've got to do less if you want to save our country, and fight the fights against the union bosses,” he said.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/odonnell_witchcraft_comment_ta.html

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"Question: In this environment, is there anything a Tea Party candidate can say or do that would be considered disqualifying for major office? "

Yes: "I'm a Democrat"!

Heh.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 19, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

s'cat,

My objection was to the "'real' American" crack in your post above.

That was Bullsh<>t.

And Gallup approve/disapprove doesn't indicate "luv" unless, of course, they've found a new methodology that can factor that in mathematically.

Posted by: tao9 | September 19, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, They included NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson, who believed that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once-healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints of employers' illegal actions as had the board during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter, and those that were settled upheld employers in three-fourths of the cases. Even under Republican Richard Nixon, employers won only about one-third of the time.

Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that under Reagan the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints, and that in any case it generally did no more than order the discharged unionists reinstated with back pay. That's much cheaper than operating under a union contract.

The board stalled as long before acting on petitions from workers seeking union representation elections and stalled for another year or two after such votes before certifying winning unions as the workers' bargaining agents. Under Reagan, too, employers were allowed to permanently replace workers who dared exercise their legal right to strike.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Union-busting was only one aspect of Reagan's anti-labor policy. He attempted to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, ease the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits, and cut back job training programs for the unemployed. He tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protections.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

http://www.dickmeister.com/id89.html

Credit to the above for an excellent summary of Reagan's battle with unions, government and nongovernmental.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Murkowski (Probably Gone) Brewer (you got a point here) Fiorina (Probably won't win) Whitman (Not sure if she'll win) Palin (quit) O'Donnell (won't win) Angle (won't win) Haley (win) Jindal (win) Scott (white dude) Collins (u got a point here) Snowe (you got a point here)

So, you've named what, 4 females out of what, 70+ Gov/Senators and you're saying it's a good representation of the population of the U.S?

Apparently, if you're bringing this up, you perceive it as a problem too.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 19, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

@Tao: "Got any numbers, citations...anything even anecdotal perhaps that could back up the aggregate."

That's what you asked for and that's what you got. If need be, I'll concede the point, cut the snark, and rephrase,

"Yeah, I know how much the righties APPROVE of government bureacrats and union members."

If you object to the term "real Americans", I'm sorry, but it is those on the right of the spectrum that have taken it upon themselves to define who does or doesn't belong.

"We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation" - Sarah Palin

"Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God" - Rep. Robin Hayes (R - NC)

"They won’t be real Americans if they love taxes.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"Murkowski, Brewer, Fiorina, Whitman, Palin, O'Donnell, Angle, Haley, Jindal, Scott, Collins, Snowe, et al."

Kind of funny that you forgot Steele.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

During an appearance Sunday at a GOP picnic in southern Delaware, O'Donnell said she was in high school when she dabbled in witchcraft. She asked the audience: "How many of you didn't hang out with questionable folks in high school?"


________________________________

How many of the democrats don't hang out with questionable folks now ???

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Brigade 4:10 PM

You are 100% correct.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat 4:47 PM


I approve of the Union, but only when they are fighting the Confederates.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

s'cat,

Truth be told, I didn't think there was that much oppo on the right. I read the Gallup write-up and the cross-tabs...the numbers have been dropping across the board since 2004 or so.

Y'know, as a po' indie/con who's been called a fascist here and to my face, getting called un-American gets my Irish up ;>).

It's lazy, and I've got no brief with the clowns cited above anymore than those on the left using the phrase as a club.

Posted by: tao9 | September 19, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues 4:29 PM


OH ME, OH MY - Reagan was a bad guy ?


Wow - you are really showing your age if you remember Reagan.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

“Reagan's war on labor…”

Why do lefties insist on characterizing any action/policy they object to as a “war on” something? Is the perennial Democratic desire to raise taxes a “war on taxpayers”?

“…began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union.”

You are missing a word there, between "13,000" and "striking". That would be "illegally". Should we characterize them as having been in a “war on the law”?

“As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers…”

Or, at least, workers who were breaking the law.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 19, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"Y'know, as a po' indie/con who's been called a fascist here and to my face, getting called un-American gets my Irish up ;>)."

Understandable. I think we on the left - particularly those who weren't raised on a farm in the heartland - hate it, too. Thus my snarkiness. No offense intended. (And I hope I wasn't the one who called you a "fascist" - I don't typically throw that word at people).

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Can we get this discussion back to Obama and his ECONOMIC POLICY???


"What economic policy?" you ask yourself.


CORRECT.


What is Obama's economic policy ???

Well, Obama's foremost priority is to CONCENTRATE ON SOMETHING ELSE.


Then Obama decides he is going to put a MASSIVE DRAG ON HIRING with the health care plan.


NOT a good idea.


So another $50 Billion wasted on bogus democratic program? What is THAT going to do for the economy???

What did Obama MAJOR in? OH, sorry we don't know because he won't show his transcripts.


.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"Why do lefties insist on characterizing any action/policy they object to as a “war on” something?"

Yes, I remember when that famous leftie George W. Bush declared the "war on terrorism"....or the ultra-leftist Ronald Reagan and his "war on drugs".

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Is the perennial Democratic desire to raise taxes a “war on taxpayers”?

_______________________________


Yes.


Case closed.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh...here's another one from my favorite lefty magazine, Forbes: "The War on Small Business".

Very unoriginal, though. The term had actually been used months before by those commies over at the NRO.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


What happened?

Reagan began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union.”


________________

Maybe you are old enough to remember this -


WHO was flying the planes?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

So another $50 Billion wasted on bogus democratic programs? What is THAT going to do for the economy???


___________________________

All the democratic programs in the stimulus were supposed to be "SHOVEL-READY"

So, WHY is Obama STILL holding onto some of the money ?


There is something SERIOUSLY WRONG HERE.


I think there is a two year limit on appropriations - so Obama HAS to spend it by the spring - or he loses it.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

s'cat,

Wasn't you. It was NewsRef, who I ended up liking and miss.

Posted by: tao9 | September 19, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Q. Mr. President, are you going to order any union members who violate the law to go to jail?

The President. I told you what I think should be done. They're terminated.

The Attorney General. Well, as the President has said, striking under these circumstances constitutes a violation of the law, and we intend to initiate in appropriate cases criminal proceedings against those who have violated the law.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

above from Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Reporters on the Air Traffic Controllers Strike

August 3, 1981

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The only time I called tao a fascist was when he took the last cannoli.

Man, I waited for that all day and I was hungry.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 19, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Q. How quickly will you initiate criminal proceedings, Mr. Attorney General?

The Attorney General. We will initiate those proceedings as soon as we can.

Q. Today?

The Attorney General. The process will be underway probably by noon today.
--------------------------------
Q. Mr. Attorney General, in seeking criminal action against the union leaders, will you seek to put them in jail if they do not order these people back to work?

The Attorney General. Well, we will seek whatever penalty is appropriate under the circumstances in each individual case.

Q. Do you think that is an appropriate circumstance?

The Attorney General. It is certainly one of the penalties that is provided for in the law, and in appropriate cases, we could very well seek that penalty.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

But, let's not call it a war on labor. Let's just call it an unfortunate misunderstanding.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

We have to get this ECONOMY going again


The democrats simply do not UNDERSTAND that there "progressive agenda" places a drag on growth.


That drag on GROWTH - after a decade begins to place a serious toll on the overall economy.


That is what is important to the American People

- NOT all the crybaby antics of 12Bar

- NOT whether Bernie Sanders is a Socialist

- NOT whether Obama is a RACIST.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


Maybe you are old enough to remember this -


WHO was flying the planes?

__________________________________

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I'd say ordinarily go with the standard "being caught in bed with an underage member of the opposite sex" but honestly, I'm not sure even that would cause their brain dead, zombie teabagger hordes to disown them.

Posted by: lcrider1 | September 19, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

The Economy is the most important issue


Obama's economic policies have been a complete disaster.


LET ME ASK YOU THIS: If a job applicant comes to your office and says - "unemployment is going to stay high for the foreseeable future"


DO YOU HIRE HIM?

OR DO YOU GET SOMEONE IN THERE WHO SAYS THEY ARE GOING TO TRY TO GET UNEMPLOYMENT DOWN?


Seriously folks - I don't see the effort, I don't see the resolve - I don't see ANYTHING from Obama on the economy.

The guy is a MORON - plain and simple.


It is about time the democrats CUT OBAMA LOOSE


I would vote for a democrat who said that Obama was off the reservation.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Apparently, if you're bringing this up, you perceive it as a problem too.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 19, 2010 4:32 PM
-----

But a problem for liberals, not conservatives. Tim Scott is a white dude? Probably news to him. Of course if all the TP is white, I guess you can call Tim white, too.

Posted by: Brigade | September 19, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

As brigade points out, Tim Scott is black. Here's a snip from his website:

In 1995, Tim was elected to Charleston County Council, becoming the first black Republican elected to county-wide office in South Carolina since Reconstruction. He served on the Council for 13 years, becoming Chairman in 2007. In 2008, Tim Scott was elected to the SC House of Representatives, again becoming the first black Republican to do so.
----------------------------------
I believe that Mr. Scott points out how few blacks are in South Carolina elected office, or do I read that wrong? Now, if the argument is that the Tea Party is breaking with the GOP's color barrier, I, for one, will wait to be convinced.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone have a reasonable dispute with the following statement?

As unsatisfying as it seems to grade on a curve, it's worth noting that while Obama took office with sky-high expectations, he was also against the backdrop of a country that was practically in free fall. Arguably no president in American history started his first day with a list like this: the Great Recession, two deadly wars, a jobs crisis, a massive deficit and budget mess, crushing debt, a health care system in shambles, a climate crisis, an ineffective energy policy, an equally ineffective immigration policy, a housing crisis, the U.S. auto industry on the verge of collapse, a mess at Gitmo, a severely tarnished global reputation, an executive branch damaged by corruption, incompetence, and mismanagement, and an angry, deeply divided electorate.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025740.php#more

While many may disagree with the actions taken, does anyone have a good faith objection to the list of problems inherited?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 19, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me--Correction--

I believe that Mr. Scott points out how few GOP blacks are in South Carolina elected office

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell's response to 12Bar's hateful remarks:


"How many of you didn't hang out with questionable folks in high school?" she asked fellow Republicans at a GOP picnic in southern Delaware on Sunday.

"There's been no witchcraft since. If there was, Karl Rove would be a supporter now," O'Donnell jokingly assured the crowd.


_____________________________________


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Not sure what 12bb's point was but to prove Scott's point that the Patco strike was illegal.

It also brought most air traffic to a halt and was very damaging to the country. How about we call it part of Big Labor's War on Freedom and Prosperity? That work?

Thank you, President Reagan, for enforcing the law and not allowing an abusive government employee union to control U.S. air travel, further damage the economy, and rip off taxpayers.

Btw, I have a good friend who is an air traffic controller. Trust me, the controllers today are making out more than handsomely.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

12Bar at 6:15 writes


Tim Scott is black. Here's a snip from his website:

__________________________________-

WHY does it matter if he is BLACK ???


That is SO RACIST

If you are implying that he should be treated differently because he is BLACK, then I object strongly.

YOU think we should be nicer to him because he IS BLACK ????

WHAT WERE YOU IMPLYING - Seriously 12Bar - I am sick of you implying that people should be treated differently because they are BLACK.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley at 6:17 writes:


Arguably no president in American history started his first day with a list like this: the Great Recession, two deadly wars, a jobs crisis, a massive deficit and budget mess, crushing debt, a health care system in shambles, a climate crisis, an ineffective energy policy, an equally ineffective immigration policy, a housing crisis, the U.S. auto industry on the verge of collapse, a mess at Gitmo, a severely tarnished global reputation, an executive branch damaged by corruption, incompetence, and mismanagement, and an angry, deeply divided electorate.


___________________________________

If Obama didn't want the job, he shouldn't have run.


MOST of these items were already know when Obama made his decision to run - EVEN the economic crisis appeared to be coming in 2006.

So you can hold the "DONT CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA" routine.

IF McCain was elected, do you think the Republicans would be WHINING LIKE THIS ?? Complaining that McCain had a difficult environment???


NO - McCain was a prisoner of WAR in VIETNAM - BEING President for McCain right now WOULD BE A CAKEWALK.

This whole idea that Obama has it bad, and should be given extra care in treatment.

THROW THE BUM OUT !!!!!

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone have a reasonable dispute with the following statement?"

Golly, you left out that he had to clean the manure out of the Lincoln Bedroom and figure out how to turn back time to save Lois Lane. Oh, and there were cooties in the Oval Office.

U r a goof.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

While many may disagree with the actions taken, does anyone have a good faith objection to the list of problems inherited?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 19, 2010 6:17 PM
----

Poor thing. He bit off more than he can chew, didn't he?

Posted by: Brigade | September 19, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley at 6:17


Yes, I think EVERY Cold War President had it much worse.


I think Truman had it worse


I think Roosevelt had it worse


I think Lincoln had it much, much worse.

This is NOT a job for an inexperienced, unqualified person.


I think you are trying to make allowances for the LACK OF JUDGEMENT on the part of the democrats who voted for an unqualified and inexperienced person.

Seriously - your position is a joke.


I am sorry - your affirmative action idea that "anybody can do the job" just isn't working out the way you thought, is it?

The honorable thing would be for Obama to resign - admit he is over his head and just get out.


But when was a democrat in office EVER honorable???


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone have a reasonable dispute with the following statement?"

Golly, you left out that he had to clean the manure out of the Lincoln Bedroom and figure out how to turn back time to save Lois Lane. Oh, and there were cooties in the Oval Office.

U r a goof.
----------------------

In qb's typically reasonable and intelligent parlance, that means "no".

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"Poor thing. He bit off more than he can chew, didn't he?"

Not nearly as badly as the imbecile who created the problems in the first place.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Here's one of the nuggets of truth I've ferreted out during my brief time here at the Plum Line:

Republicans and tea-baggers are stupid, but they're going to turn out and vote and, therefore, are likely to do well in the upcoming election. Democrats are smart, but they probably won't turn out enough votes to stop the Republicans from doing well in the upcoming election.

I think we may have to redefine the meaning of the words "smart" and "stupid" --- no?

Posted by: Brigade | September 19, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse


cmccauley60 at 6:17 PM


While many may disagree with the actions taken, does anyone have a good faith objection to the list of problems inherited?

_____________________________

You are basically saying Obama can not handle the job.

Seriously, all the Cold War Presidents had it worse as did Roosevelt and Lincoln and Truman.

YOU are basically trying to make excuses for Obama's poor job performance - "the job is too hard"


Well GET SOMEONE IN WHO CAN HANDLE THE JOB

Seriously, you have an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION guy in a job he can NOT handle.


AND what do you do? You complain about the job.


What about getting someone in there who is QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED???

That would do it.

McCain's people would NEVER say such a thing.


Compared to being in a Vietnamese Prisoner of War camp, being President right now is EASY

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"In qb's typically reasonable and intelligent parlance, that means "no"."

Tell me, scat, do you think cmc's question was reasonable and intelligent or or asked in good faith?

Do you have any reasonable dispute that it shows cmc to be a goof?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

@qb,

Indeed I did point out that Reagan and his administration considered the strike illegal. It was never my intent to hide that. I just wanted people to know the details of the strike and the pressure brought to bear, including jail time, a pressure that is only available to the government, I might add. The point that Scott made was it wasn't a "war on labor" but something else, which he didn't deign to state.

I totally get it that you, and perhaps Scott, concurred with Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers and the breaking of their union (you do remember the government froze and took over their strike funds?).

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"Seriously, all the Cold War Presidents had it worse as did Roosevelt and Lincoln and Truman."

So, Truman wasn't a Cold War president? Marshall Plan? Truman Doctrine? Korean War? NATO? Any of that ring a bell?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Brigade 6:46 PM


I don't know what happened to this country


The democrats elected Clinton in 1992 - he was center-leaning


And he basically went in there and sold-out the country to every corporate interest he could find.


The rest of the democratic party went crazy - radical-left - and to be honest - what the left has to say now is close to insanity.


The economics of what the democrats want is ridiculous -


In 10 years, the foregone growth compared to what the democrats want - everyone will agree its not worth it.


The democratic party - after the Florida election, 9/11 and Iraq - has completely LOST ITS MIND.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

12bb,

It was not just "considered" illegal by the Reagan Administration. It was illegal. That was never disputed and could not have been.

Yes, I recall that the strike funds or some part of them were seized, although i don't recall their ultimate disposition. The illegal strike caused significant harm to the country. And yes it was in my view a heroic act of leadership and law enforcement to fire them and have the union decertified. They were also held in contempt and fined by a federal judge.

It marked a very necessary pushback against Big Labor.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Exactly, QB, because the original point--where this all started--was a poster disputing that the GOP has a history of anti union activities, or as you say "a very necessary pushback against Big Labor".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat 6:56 PM


That was for emphasis


What are you doing - parsing EVERYTHING

Did I say that Truman was NOT ?

Quick - what did Truman sell before he was in politics ???

zzzzzzzzzzz the right answer is hats.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

The GOP has only pushed back at the margins against Big Labor. You call that "anti-union." Whatever.

I wish they had done more to even the playing field. I happen to believe in free markets, including free labor markets. No union should have a legal monopoly on a company or industry's workforce.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRacists said:

"Seriously, you have an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION guy in a job he can NOT handle."

Because there's no way a black man could ever win on merit right?

Idiot.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 19, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

THE TRUTH


Obama IGNORED the American People when they needed him MOST


Obama cared more about his stupid health care bill than PEOPLE'S JOBS.

No one wants Obama's health care plan - it is a bad plan, it is TOO EXPENSIVE - and it is NOT doing what Obama said.

Clearly - Obama should have been working on the economy.

Obviously, it would have been much better if the democratic party had nominated someone who UNDERSTOOD ECONOMICS - however "qualifications" is not really something the democrats think about when they nominate people.

Obama should do the honorable thing and resign.

The democratic candidates WHO are out there - saying that Obama's health care plan was wrong - THEY ARE HONORABLE AND THEY CARE ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

"That was for emphasis"

Riiiigggghhhhhht.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington | September 19, 2010 7:12 PM


Take a WHITE GUY with the same resume - half a term in the Senate


A book tour instead of working in the Senate


No accomplishments in the Senate


No accomplishments as a State Senator


A gerrymandered district for BLACKS - Obama would never have been a State Senator if it wasn't for that gerrymandered district.

Take Obama's resume - give it to a WHITE GUY - and tell me how many VOTES HE GETS FOR PRESIDENT.

Why did the two white guys - Biden and Dodd - with decades of experience each - get little support? Because they were WHITE MEN?

Seriously - look at the democratic field of Presidential candidates in 2008


WHO HAD MERIT ?


Biden and Dodd had the MERIT


RIGHT BACK AT YOU MIKE - YOU REALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

CASE CLOSED.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"The point that Scott made was it wasn't a "war on labor" but something else, which he didn't deign to state."

I had two points. First, that lefties routinely attribute policies they don't like to the waging of a "war" on this or that. War on science, war on labor, war on the middle class, etc. This is a tedious and dishonest rhetorical ploy.

Second, that your description of the firing of the air traffic controllers left out a crucial point that impacts on the rest of your analysis...the strike was illegal.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 19, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

"Take Obama's resume - give it to a WHITE GUY - and tell me how many VOTES HE GETS FOR PRESIDENT"

I don't know - how many votes did W get? No, nevermind - that's not fair - he had less of a resume then Obama did.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRacist uses the same tires southern strategy dog whistle calling Obama an affirmative action President.

See, many racists don't believe black Americans can achieve what they achieved on their personal merits alone when at the same time they think people such as Sarah Palin are fit to be President.

The only explanation racists come up with is Affirmative Action. Because, working your butt off your entire life just doesn't amount to much in the eyes of a racists such as SaveTheRacists.

I'm glad you finally slipped up SaveTheRacists. Now everyone can openly accept what you really are.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 19, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"I don't know - how many votes did W get? No, nevermind - that's not fair - he had less of a resume then Obama did."

Except for that part about being Governor of a large state, as compared to a back-benching half-term Senator. Oh, wait, he was never a community organizer, though.


Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington


Seriously - look at the democratic field of Presidential candidates in 2008


WHO HAD MERIT ?


Biden and Dodd had the MERIT

RIGHT BACK AT YOU MIKE - YOU REALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.


CASE CLOSED.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I see SaveTheRacists is all caps now. I guess you having slipped up and outing yourself as the racist you are struck a nerve.

I guess I'd be upset too.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 19, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington 7:35 PM


Your thinking FAILS on many accounts


There are many black men in the country who are MORE qualified than Obama ever was.


Seriously - you resort to name-calling when you KNOW YOU ARE WRONG

Why don't you take your flawed reasoning and go somewhere else?

Your reasoning is alwys "If Mike from Arlington doesn't understand the point, the other guy MUST be a racist."


I am black, by the way, and you are a complete MORON.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

s-cat:

"No, nevermind - that's not fair - he had less of a resume then Obama did"

How so? Seriously? I realize this is standard mythology on the left, but seriously in what sense do you think Bush's resume was "less" than Obama's?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 19, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Of course you aren't SaveTheRacists.

SaveTheRacists knows when he calls Obama the affirmative action President he's using the same techniques the race baiters like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck use to stoke up any racial animosity that might exist.

Thanks for outing yourself SaveTheRacists.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 19, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

So, not one dispute to even a single item on Benen's list?

Interesting.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 19, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Take Obama's resume - give it to a WHITE GUY - and tell me how many VOTES HE GETS FOR PRESIDENT.


Why did the two white guys - Biden and Dodd - with decades of experience each - get little support? Because they were WHITE MEN?


Seriously - look at the democratic field of Presidential candidates in 2008


WHO HAD MERIT ?


Biden and Dodd had the MERIT

Leave Bush out of this for the moment and just talk about 2008 democratic primary.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama Resume:

Columbia BA
Havard JD
Entry-level corporate flunky
Community Organizer
Associate lawyer
State legislator
Half-term Senator (with no significant accomplishments)

Impressive indeed. Who'd have thought he wasn't the world-historical leader he portrayed himself as.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRacists, give it up.

Maybe you should have avoided outing yourself so blatantly.

Anyways, have a good night, fake black guy.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 19, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks Sarah Palin is qualified to run anything isn't thinking clearly.

ok...now I'm off.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 19, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

So, not one dispute to even a single item on Benen's list?

Interesting.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 19, 2010 7:48 PM


________________________________

Everyone AGREES that Obama deserves NO special consideration for your list.


Everyone AGREES the Cold War Presidents had it WORSE.

The NATION believes that Obama is in WAY OVER HIS HEAD - and if Obama can not handle the job - he should resign.

NO EXCUSES - NO WHINING


This is NOT the job for your affirmative action guy to start saying "the job is too hard"


Time for all your whining to go.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

So, not one dispute to even a single item on Benen's list?

Interesting.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 19, 2010 7:48 PM


________________________________

Everyone AGREES that Obama deserves NO special consideration for your list.


Everyone AGREES the Cold War Presidents had it WORSE.

The NATION believes that Obama is in WAY OVER HIS HEAD - and if Obama can not handle the job - he should resign.

NO EXCUSES - NO WHINING


This is NOT the job for your affirmative action guy to start saying "the job is too hard"


Time for all your whining to go.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

The point is:

Take a WHITE GUY WITH THIS RESUME


Obama Resume:

Columbia BA
Havard JD
Entry-level corporate flunky
Community Organizer
Associate lawyer
State legislator
Half-term Senator (with no significant accomplishments)

Impressive indeed. Who'd have thought he wasn't the world-historical leader he portrayed himself as.


__________________________________


And how far would the WHITE GUY get in the Presidential RACE ???

ON the question of Merit - Biden and Dodd BOTH had better resumes - WHY didn't they get more votes ?

MIKE from Arlington claims that race had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT


RACE HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Mike - you are NOT qualified to comment anymore. You really aren't.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

"If Mike from Arlington doesn't understand the point, the other guy MUST be a racist."


______________________________


This WHOLE discussion started with an effort to EVALUATE OBAMA'S ECONOMIC POLICIES.

And - as always - the discussion degenerates into some democrat calling someone a racist over something.


Is that the Post-Racial America that Obama promised?? NO.

What we have right now is UNPRECEDENTED DAILY VIOLATIONS of Obama's campaign promises on the part of democrats.

At NO POINT in human history has a population been let down so FAR as comparing Obama's platform in 2008 to what the democrats are NOW doing on a DAILY basis.

It is sad - It is UNPRECEDENTED.

Obama always wanted to be UNPRECEDENTED - but the truth is Obama is UNPRECENDENTED in all the categories which he does not want to be.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60 7:48 PM


You are right - it's a big job.


But Obama isn't the right guy for it - never was.

You are trying to make an excuse that the job is too difficult.


THERE ARE HUNDREDS of people in this country MORE QUALIFIED THAN OBAMA - and who can handle the job.

You would NEVER hear such whining from McCain and his people - compared to being in a Vietnamese prison camp???


Seriously - your point is REJECTED out of hand.

Mike from Arlington picked up on the response - and started to cry RACIST.


But YOUR point is that Obama CAN NOT HANDLE the job.

And on that - you are right.


Talking to democrats is like talking to a bunch of kindergarten kids -

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

"Except for that part about being Governor of a large state,"

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I'm from Texas and lived there at the time. And as anyone who has ever studied how TX state govt works knows, being Governor of TX is kind of equivalent to being Queen of England: lots of pomp and circumstance and very little power. I think the Commissioner of the Dept. of Agriculture has more power than the governor. Anyhow, I guess his big selling point as governor was ending up with a budget surplus and pushing through tax cuts - but that was only because of money the state received from the tobacco settlement. Oh, and, of course, we have to remember those 152 executions.

So, what else did he do? BA in History from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. (I wonder if everyone with his grades whose name was not "Bush" could've gotten into those institutions?) Then we've got a couple of failed businesses and a role in his father's campaign. Oh, that's right - he was also managing general partner for the Rangers - a role that should've foretold his incompetence as president: he was apparently the only imbecile in the N. Texas area that couldn't see what the Rangers really needed was a bullpen.

He was pretty much a non-entity as governor. I think it was pretty well known that it was just a stepping stone for him. It's funny, though, because when he was declared President in 2000, I remember thinking "Well, he wasn't too bad of a Governor.....how bad could he possibly screw things up?".

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama said "combat operations" were over


BASED on WHAT ??

Six car bombs detonated across Baghdad on Sunday and a suicide bomber exploded a car in nearby Fallujah, killing a total of 37 people and wounding more than 100


_________________________________

This character Obama - who announces a pull-out date to the TALIBAN


I'm going to stop right there - because that was the DUMBEST THING EVER - IN THE HISTORY OF WARFARE.


Chalk that up to another unprecedented thing for Obama.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Look at Obama

Obama is WEAK on national security and terrorism policy


Obama has NO economic policy - except put a DRAG on hiring through health care.

And Obama has the NERVE to go to Greenwich, Connecticut and say that he got the "most progressive agenda ever" through Congress.

What a joke - NO one in the country wanted his "most progressive agenda" NO ONE voted for THAT.

The democrats in Greenwich, Connecticut WERE HORRIFIED AT OBAMA'S REMARKS.


They can not believe how out-of-touch he is.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

s-cat:

"He was pretty much a non-entity as governor."

Well, that is interesting and all, but you have notably ignored any comparison to Obama's resume, which is sort of necessary if you are going to substantiate the claim that Bush's is somehow "less" than Obama's.

Again, in what way is Bush's resume "less" than Obama's?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 19, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Scott


THAT is not the point


The point is compare Obama's resume to Biden's and Dodd's resume.

The point is : there are MUCH MORE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES than Obama

NOW the country is suffering because there is an economic crisis and there is an unqualified and inexperienced person in the White House.


Don't you feel GUILTY ABOUT THAT?


ALL THE DEMOCRATS in the country should feel GUILTY that the country is not being run properly in an economic crisis - because of some affirmative action thing that went on.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone disagree with this statement from Lisa Murkowski:

On CNN she said: "Joe Miller simply does not represent that. He is suggesting to us, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many, many Alaskans, some pretty radical things. You know, we dump Social Security. No more Medicare. Let's get rid of the Department of Education. Elimination of all earmarks."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/09/where_were_going.php?ref=fpblg

That is Joe Miller's position, right? How does it differ from Paul Ryan? Are these the positions of the tea party, in general? Do mainstream republicans agree with these positions?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 19, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

s'cat, I'm just going to assume that you concede that your claim that W had a lesser resume than Obama was silly and wrong, since you don't really defend it, and we all know it was silly and wrong.

Btw, W had better grades at Yale than Gore. And no one knows Obama's grades at Columbia or HLS. Nothing I've seen from him indicates that they would likely be impressive. Of course, that doesn't disqualify him from being a good President. He's just a terrible President because he is.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60 8:45 PM


Everyone in the country AGREES we have to get rid of Obama and the democrats FIRST.


Then we will talk about what happens next.


The Republicans are NOT going to lie to the country - promising bipartisanship (meaning compromise and CENTRIST policies) - and post-racial policies (apparently meaning calling everyone a racist) - and Transparency (meaning hiding everything starting at birth certificates.)

The country is sick of the democrats.

So - we will talk about what it all means.


REGISTERED DEMOCRATS will get a BILL in the mail for the REST OF THEIR LIVES - paying off ALL of Obama debet - principle and interest.


After that - we will talk.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60 at 8:45 PM


Maybe if you get the BILL in the mail for Obama's deficit spending, you will start to care about the $1.3 Trillion dollar deficit.


AND the deficit from the health care bill that Obama is putting on the Federal government and the STATES.

Send the BILL to just the REGISTERED DEMOCRATS and make THEM PAY FOR OBAMA.


See how they like getting things jammed down their throat.


This time - just mail the BILL FOR OBAMA'S DEBT TO THE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

"Well, that is interesting and all, but you have notably ignored any comparison to Obama's resume, which is sort of necessary if you are going to substantiate the claim that Bush's is somehow "less" than Obama's. "

Sorry, I just assumed that we were all well-acquainted with Obama's resume.

Well, let's see - he graduated from Columbia with a degree in political science with a specialty in international relations. Then a law degree from Harvard and was president of the law review. More relevant experience then Bush's History BA and MBA? I think so. He also apparently got into Columbia and Harvard without any help from Daddy.

For jobs he was, of course, a community organizer, a lawyer in private practice, and a law professor. Were his jobs more important than Bush's oil companies? I don't know - but I'm pretty sure he got his jobs all on his own, something I doubt Bush could claim. I'm pretty sure Obama didn't drive any of his employers into bankruptcy, either.

Seven yrs of experience in the state senate plus 4 years in the US Senate vs. Bush's 6 yrs as head of a state that could run with my 8 yr old as governor. So, 11 yrs legislative experience v. 8 yrs executive experience. I don't know....your call, but it sure sounds like Obama has more experience as an elected official.

I personally think Obama's got the better resume, but I guess if you're looking for a MBA who knows how to run businesses into the ground...Bush's your guy!

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat wrote,
"Yes, I'm well aware of that. I'm from Texas and lived there at the time."
-------

Are you the one who worked in the bean fields at the time, or am I thinking of someone else?

Posted by: Brigade | September 19, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat at 8:22 PM


Lets see your great analysis comparing Biden's resume and Dodd's resume with Obama's resume.


HA.


Let's see you do that.

ON AN ALTER AT MIDNIGHT, ok ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1


The laugh came when the democrats were walking around saying how much smarter Kerry was than Bush.


Then both camps released their transcripts.


Bush's grades were FAR AHEAD of Kerry.


Obama refuses to let anyone see his grades.


Speculuation is that Obama's transcript will reveal that he was enrolled as a "foreign student" from Indonesia. I don't know - that is just the speculation.

But let's see the transcripts, right ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

"Are you the one who worked in the bean fields at the time, or am I thinking of someone else?"

Well, I don't know WTH you're talking about so whatever it was it wasn't me. (Although it sounds like an interesting story...)

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

I personally think Obama's got the better resume, but I guess if you're looking for a MBA who knows how to run businesses into the ground...Bush's your guy!


Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 9:01 PM
-----

I personally think Bush's got the better resume, but I guess if you're looking for a community-organizer who knows how to run an entire country into the ground and keep it there . . . Obama's your guy!

Posted by: Brigade | September 19, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

qb:

"And no one knows Obama's grades at Columbia or HLS."

Did Obama ever offer a reason for his refusal to release his transcripts?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 19, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

How do you all get trapped comparing W. and Obama's intelligence, education, saavy, respect or world standing? I've heard people debate Mrs. Palin versus Obama, and with a straight face, too. I guess quality is in the eyes of the beholder.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Q: Is there anything a Tea Party candidate can say or do that would be considered disqualifying for major office?


A: anything sane. (rim shot)

Posted by: northsideTony | September 19, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

See - the democrats do NOT want to compare Biden's and Dodd's resumes to Obama's.


WHY?

It focuses on the JUDGEMENT OF THE DEMOCRATS.


Because only the democrats VOTED in the 2008 primaries.


So - to say that Obama's resume doesnt ADD UP - that means the democrats were CONSIDERING OBAMA'S RACE.


HHHMMM - isn't that the point, Mike from Arlington ????

Isn't that the QUESTION OF MERIT ???


And if the democrats voted for Obama - for no reason other than his race,


Isn't that racist ???


Case closed.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat at 8:22 PM


Lets see your great analysis comparing Biden's resume and Dodd's resume with Obama's resume.


HA.


Let's see you do that.


ON AN ALTAR AT MIDNIGHT, ok ?

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

STRF says Obama won because he is black and that's the only reason.

Anyone who debates him should have their head looked into. Isn't it obvious what this is all about?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

Never said that -

Why do you insist on changing people's words?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

s-cat:

"I just assumed that we were all well-acquainted with Obama's resume."

I am, which is exactly why I was baffled by your claim. I thought maybe you knew something I didn't. You don't.

Even by your own accounting, Obama had virtually no executive experience in any capacity whatsoever, public or private.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 19, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

"I personally think Bush's got the better resume, but I guess if you're looking for a community-organizer who knows how to run an entire country into the ground and keep it there . . . Obama's your guy!"

Yes, of course, I keep forgetting the fact that we were all skipping around singing "Zippity Doo Da" up until the day Obama was sworn in. Then the skies clouded over, the earth opened up and swallowed the housing market, the labor market, the US auto industry, the US banking industry, the huge government surplus, the city of NO, and world peace. Bad Obama!

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama's people are now talking about attacking the Tea Party.


Interesting how the President wants to go to WAR against half the country.


Obama's problem is this: his attitude towards the Tea Party is OFFENSIVE to a majority of Americans.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

'Will you walk into my parlor?' said the Spider to the Fly

It starts out about resume, then it goes to affirmative action and being black. There's nothing to debate when THAT is the debate. Obama is black.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama's problem is this: his attitude towards the Tea Party is OFFENSIVE to a majority of Americans.


_____________________________

Yes - first Obama and the democrats seek to sterotype the Tea Party -


- which is exactly what blacks have been complaining about for generations.


THEN Obama tries to call the Tea Party a bunch of Racists -


- which really doesn't work, because it's not true

So Obama is stuck - trying to ATTACK a majority of the country.

Obama is in a bad position - because whenever he goes against the Tea Party, he looks like a hypocrite - not respecting the Freedom of Speech of the Tea Party.


Obama made a serious mistake with his EXPENSIVE health care bill - it will be repealed - and now that everyone told him NOT to do it - because the voters would be angry -

NOW the voters are ANGRY - because Obama didn't listen - and everyone TOLD Obama the voters would be angry if he pushed through the health care bill.


Obama has NO ONE to blame but himself -

Obama risks a reaction - losing even MORE support - Obama should not criticize the Tea Party because it makes Obama look even weaker than he is.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

"Interesting how the President wants to go to WAR against half the country."

C'mon, Scott....he's calling something a "war" and he's not a liberal.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues at 9:29 PM


Really? No one in the country knew that - thanks for telling the nation that Obama is black.

The QUESTION -


Would a WHITE GUY with the SAME RESUME AS OBAMA been elected to be President ????

And the examples of Biden and Dodd were given.

Hey - we all KNOW you read the postings - so don't pretend you are not following.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

"Even by your own accounting, Obama had virtually no executive experience in any capacity whatsoever, public or private."

I'm sorry....I missed the rule that stated "only executive experience" counts. My bad.

Based on how little good it did W, seems pretty silly.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

I am sorry - your affirmative action idea that "anybody can do the job" just isn't working out the way you thought, is it?
-----------------------------------

ALL THE DEMOCRATS in the country should feel GUILTY that the country is not being run properly in an economic crisis - because of some affirmative action thing that went on.
-----------------------------------

This is NOT the job for your affirmative action guy to start saying "the job is too hard"
--------------------------------------

MIKE from Arlington claims that race had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT


RACE HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
---------------------------------
Quotes from STRF, just today.


Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat 9:41 PM

"only executive experience counts"

___________

Well WHAT "experience" ARE you counting ???

Obama had NO Experience


I guess walking door-to-door as a community organizer counts as some experience.


Where's the experience???

The POINT is that Obama's LACK OF EXPERIENCE IS SHOWING NOW - IT IS HURTING THE ECONOMY.


The democrats just sit there - and try to defend their votes which were motivated by RACE.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"It starts out about resume, then it goes to affirmative action and being black."

What are you talking about? Why are you suddenly introducing race into the discussion?

"Obama is black."

He is?!?!?!

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 19, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

OK, STRF, here's your answer. Now hold on, because it is obvious.

Obama won because he got more votes. He beat the white guys he ran against because he got more delegates.

And what was YOUR point again? Something about affirmative action, wasn't it, or being black.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH


12BarBlues and CNN IS CONFIRMING

NEWS FLASH

12BARBLUES AND CNN IS CONFIRMING

Obama is black.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

"More relevant experience then Bush's History BA and MBA? I think so."

You really are silly. Btw, perhaps if Obama had some education or experience in business or economics he wouldn't be completely illiterate in those areas.

"He also apparently got into Columbia and Harvard without any help from Daddy."

So let's assume W had legacy "help." (Doubtfully at HBS.) Why do you assume that Obama didn't have affirmative action "help" getting into Columbia and HLS? I know the relative odds of admission at the top law schools when Obama attended pretty well. Grades and scores that would have meant automatic rejection for a white student would have been well above grades and scores that meant automatic admission for a minority applicant. And HLS Law Review had it, too. O also had lots of "help" being elected to office, from folks like his media pals who went after Jack Ryan's divorce records.

"law professor"

Actually he was a lecturer. He never produced any scholarship.

"I don't know - but I'm pretty sure he got his jobs all on his own, something I doubt Bush could claim"

Your doubts aren't relevant. Obama never had a meaningful job in the private sphere except several years as a lawyer doing "civil rights" law. He was never in charge of anything and never had responsibility for anything he could bankrupt. (And it shows.)

"Seven yrs of experience in the state senate plus 4 years in the US Senate vs. Bush's 6 yrs as head of a state that could run with my 8 yr old as governor."

Obama was a Senator for about 2 years before he started running for President, and was an absentee thereafter. I guess we'll just have to take your word for it that a child could be a good Governor of Texas.

"So, 11 yrs legislative experience v. 8 yrs executive experience. I don't know....your call, but it sure sounds like Obama has more experience as an elected official."

Call me crazy, like most people I think executive experience is a lot more relevant. W had lots. O had none. Ever.

But don't take my word for it. Go back and take a look at Obama's press conference after being elected to the Senate. He said he would not run for President because he was unprepared for it.

Biden and Hillary said he lacked the experience in 2008. I suppose you think they were lying.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

"What are you talking about? Why are you suddenly introducing race into the discussion?"

You are apparently skipping right over STRF's posts. Not that anyone would blame you....

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

there were 2 Perry really ugly looking signs in my conservative neighborhood and at least 100 White signs. Too bad the election is not decided by signs or bumper stickers. The Houston Chronicle was totally ticked that Perry has stiffed all editorial bds in the state and their headline today reads: Time for a Change; Texas can't afford 4 more year of Perry's leadership.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 19, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

12 Bar


Clearly the PROBLEM is we are in an ECONOMIC CRISIS - and Obama is off doing his "big things" - and NOT concentrating what is important - JOBS

The problem STARTED when the democrats were motivated by RACE - not qualification or experience - in voting for Obama.


Bad things happen during a term of office - the person has to be PREPARED.

Someone here was whining that the job is too hard - and Obama should be given sympathy.

If Obama is not qualified, he should leave the office. It is that simple.

Obama's judgement has been NOTHING BUT POOR


Poor on putting the economy to the side.


Poor on pressing "big government" in the middle of a recession.


Poor on national security.

You have NOTHING to say on Obama's job performance.

Let's all be adults and figure out a way to get Obama to RESIGN.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Give it up, you guys. Obama is president because he got 67 million votes and 365 delegates. McCain got 58 million votes and 173 delegates. You can break it down the same way at the primary level.

You want to make the point that Obama is president because he's black? Go ahead, make your points.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 19, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Scott:

"Did Obama ever offer a reason for his refusal to release his transcripts?"

Not that I am aware of, although I have not fixated on the issue.

I think we are entitled to draw the adverse but reasonable inference -- his record probably is not that good, and perhaps it would be outright embarassing. Before the election, I assumed he was as "smart" as his idolators claimed. He clearly is "smart," but I don't think he is distinguished at all by Ivy standards.

Suppose his grades were nothing special. How embarassing would that be not only to him but to HLS and its Law Review, for example?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

s-cat:

"I'm sorry....I missed the rule that stated "only executive experience" counts."

I'm sorry...I thought you were talking about a resume relevant to the job of the Presidency. My bad.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 19, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA AND THE ECONOMY


When - in the history of mankind - has anyone been given $800 Billion dollars - and has SO LITTLE TO SHOW FOR IT ???

Obama WASTED $800 Billion dollars of stimulus money.

The democrats refuse to even talk about it.


How many jobs did that $800 Billion produce ???

The democrats should be calling for Obama to resign - because of the damage to the democratic party - what is wrong with the democrats ???


Yea - the democrats GAVE OBAMA $800 Billion - and what did he do with it ???

Case closed.


12Bar - the Case is closed.


You can go now.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

"You want to make the point that Obama is president because he's black? Go ahead, make your points."

This is a consistent patter I see with you. Either you don't pay attention very well or you have problems with logic.

Scott and I simply responded to s'cat's claim that W's resume was inferior to O's.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"You are apparently skipping right over STRF's posts."

I am.

"Give it up, you guys."

What "guys"?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 19, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

qb:

"How embarassing would that be not only to him but to HLS and its Law Review, for example?"

Embarrassing indeed.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 19, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

someone please tell 37th/STR that the 2008 election is over, long over, his side lost and that no the Tea Party does not make up 1/2 the country but does reflect 99% of the GOP who are falling all over themselves to become their alter ego. Ross Perot represented less than 1/3rd of the electorate, The Tea Party represents far less than that.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 19, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

"Btw, perhaps if Obama had some education or experience in business or economics he wouldn't be completely illiterate in those areas."

So, what was Bush's excuse?

"Why do you assume that Obama didn't have affirmative action "help" getting into Columbia and HLS?"

I never assumed anything. I just get really tickled when people pi*s and moan about race based affirmative action and then have no problems with class based affirmative action.

"Actually he was a lecturer. He never produced any scholarship."

So? The generic term "professor" doesn't necessarily imply a specific rank. At my undergrad institute our non-tenured lecturers were referred to as "adjunct professors".

"Your doubts aren't relevant. Obama never had a meaningful job in the private sphere except several years as a lawyer doing "civil rights" law."

And your opinions aren't relevant to what anyone else might consider a "meaningful job".

"Obama was a Senator for about 2 years before he started running for President, and was an absentee thereafter."

And Bush was only governor for 3 yrs before he started running for President and was an absentee thereafter.

"W had lots."

Well, I would quibble with your use of "lots". And besides does quantity necessarily equate to quality?

"O had none. Ever."

Unless, of course, you count running a highly successful presidential campaign with a budget of close to $1 billion. But then again, I'm pretty sure you'll dismiss that as "meaningless" because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

"Embarrassing indeed."

I will grant him this: it is reported that he graduated magna cum laude from HLS. That is not easy and would have been only around the top 10% or less of the class, although it also has to be said that distinctions between good students at top law schools are razor thin, and grades are notoriously erratic, and are not always blind or completely so, particularly third year. You still have to be very smart to be magna, though.

But the evidence seems to suggest he was not distinguished as an undergrad, and I personally think he was "helped" into HLS. In fact, I think it fairly obvious. Having been out of college and working as a "community organizer" for a couple of years couldn't have hurt either. They love that liberal activism, "self sacrifice" kind of "work."

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

"But then again, I'm pretty sure you'll dismiss that as "meaningless" because it doesn't fit your narrative."

No, I dismiss it because it is ridiculous.

Your hero said in early 2005 he wouldn't run for President because he wasn't qualified. Two years later, after having done nothing meaningful, he started running.

Then he cited his successful primary campaign as his executive experience.

If someone had made up a story like that, it would have been totally unbelievable. Audacity indeed.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

The POINT is if the democrats are upset that Obama has NO IDEA what to do about the economy.


YOU can blame yourselves for putting the INEXPERIENCED AND UNQUALIFIED OBAMA in.

Seriously LEICHTMAN - everyone TOLD you Obama was unqualified - so NOW you are upset he is MESSING UP THE ECONOMY?

WHAT did Obama do with the $800 Billion in Stimulus money?


How many jobs were created? What is the amount per job???


Putting an UNQUALIFIED guy in - has consequences - and now the NATION IS SUFFERING.


It is the fault of the democrats - and the nation holds you responsible.


If you don't want to talk about WHERE you went wrong, the NATION DOES, LEACHMAN.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

"I'm sorry...I thought you were talking about a resume relevant to the job of the Presidency. My bad."

Gotcha. Legislative experience not relevant.

It's too bad that Abraham Lincoln fellow didn't have any "relevant" experience. He might've made a fine president.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama's problem is this: his attitude towards the Tea Party is OFFENSIVE to a majority of Americans.

_____________________________


It is clear that Obama looks down on the Tea Party people.


As if the Tea Party barely qualifies for CIVIL RIGHTS - and REALLY should not be allowed to express Freedom of Speech.


That is Obama's attitude right???

Obama's wants to INTIMIDATE the Tea Party - calling them RACIST will make them THINK TWICE about voicing their OPINIONS, right ?

Is this the kind of President we want in America ???

Resign Obama, RESIGN - no one wants a guy with your attitude around.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1, I saw your suggestions this morning re candidates, all good. I figure we'll do 2 or 3 a week with a bit of reasoning for the investment. Of course all suggestions are welcome, I'm just the "community organizer". LOL

Posted by: lmsinca | September 19, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

quarterback

ON Obama's transcripts


I think we are entitled to draw the adverse but reasonable inference --


______________________________

OR the transcripts indicate that Obama was enrolled as a foreign student - a citizen of Indonesia.


If you remember, Obama was still using his step-father's last name when he enrolled in College for the first time - at Occidental.

So- Barry Soetoro - did he get financial aid as foreign student ?

Question ASKED - TRANSPARENCY DENIED.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

"Your hero said in early 2005 he wouldn't run for President because he wasn't qualified. Two years later, after having done nothing meaningful, he started running."

And your point is...what? That politicians change their mind? That politicians are ambitious? That situations change? I seem to recall someone (I'm not sure who it was) campaigning against "nation building"....sound familiar?

Truth is, there's probably a good chance that after watching W fumble around DC for two years he probably thought "if he can do it, why can't I?"

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

THE POINT


Obama's LACK of qualification and lack of experience is HURTING THE ECONOMY RIGHT NOW


That is the point


Everyone can debate debate debate - but what is the IMPACT of that horrible decision on the economy of the nation RIGHT NOW?


Obama is doing damage to the economy RIGHT now - by putting a drag on hiring with his health care plan.

Let's take this scenario: no stimulus, no drag on hiring because there was NO health care plan.

Do the NET JOBS - from the stimulus OUTWEIGH the drag on hiring from the health care bill ???


THAT is the impact of OBAMA, his lack of qualifications.

What is scary is the democrats STILL want to defend their decision - even when it is OBVIOUS the democratic party made a HORRIBLE DECISION.


Horrible decision - one that is hurting every American right now. Just because the democrats think their liberal agenda is superior, and makes them superior people - and they want to feel better about themselves because they are cool enough to vote for a black guy. Can he do the job? The liberals don't care. It is cool to vote for him.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Alright....flame away if you must. The NY/Indy game is a bust so I'm out of here for the night....off to see the new Scorsese show on HBO.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse


Truth is, there's probably a good chance that after watching W fumble around DC for two years he probably thought "if he can do it, why can't I?"

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 19, 2010 10:44 PM


_____________________________________

You forget, Obama did his book tour, instead of learning about how the US Senate works -


THAT made Obama instantly qualified.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

The most important thing is the economy.


It is a real slap in the fact to the American People that Obama doesn't think the economy is important enough - and that his "big things" are more important.


It is this kind of arrogance from Obama that the American People are RIGHT to get Obama out of office as soon as possible - and to vote as many democrats out of office this year as possible.

Seriously folks, it is a lack of judgement of the HIGHEST ORDER.


There is no reason that the American People should have to put up with this.

AND the democrats don't even seem to care.

That is the problem.


The American People DESERVE BETTER.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

"Truth is, there's probably a good chance that after watching W fumble around DC for two years he probably thought "if he can do it, why can't I?" "

No, he's just a phony and an egomaniac.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 19, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

If Obama decides to go after the Tea Party in an ad campaign, he instantly nationalizes the midterm elections - and everyone will be voting up or down on Obama.


How is that going to go for Obama ???

It's a disaster - a complete disaster.

Obama is like a fish out of water, flopping around.

Should you throw it back in, and have it die in the water - or let it die faster in the sun ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 19, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Greg, is there a way to hide the comments of certain individuals on this blog?

I don't need to see a hundred comments saying nothing of value, arguing ridiculous points (often based on specious information) of contention.

It's cheapening the level of discussion.

Are there any plans to update your comment system, at least to the level of Cillizza's "The Fix" comment system, which allows direct replies to other commenters?

Posted by: associate20 | September 19, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

get a life STR/37th. Your obsessive hatred of your POTUS got really old at The Fix and it looks like your obssesive daily meltdowns are being replicated here. Its a free country and you certainly have the right to post any nonsense that floats your boat, but it is truly sad to see how your manic posts have obviously consumed your life. Every other post here from 7 am until 11 pm has your name on it. Truly sad. Good Night enjoy your obsession.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 19, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Well, I can name at least one point where Obama's resume beats Bush's hands down:

Obama didn't spend the first 20 years of adulthood as a stinking drunk.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 19, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Say you don't believe in God.

Posted by: NorwegianShooter | September 20, 2010 1:56 AM | Report abuse

The only thing they could say would be to pledge to defend and extend the policies of the Democrats. That would disqualify them.

Posted by: robert17 | September 20, 2010 4:41 AM | Report abuse

s-cat:

"It's too bad that Abraham Lincoln fellow didn't have any "relevant" experience. He might've made a fine president."

I never suggested that one couldn't be a fine president without previous relevant experience. In fact I have argued here in the past that the Presidency is so unique that there is little experience that can truly "prepare" one for the job.

I was simply challenging your claim that Bush's resume was somehow "less" Obama's. That seems absurd on its face, regardless of one's judgment of either Bush's or Obama's ultimate performance on the job.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 20, 2010 5:26 AM | Report abuse

"Well, I can name at least one point where Obama's resume beats Bush's hands down:

Obama didn't spend the first 20 years of adulthood as a stinking drunk."

That's an interesting if, typically for you, exaggerated comparison.

Bush embraced Christian faith and gave up alcohol in the mid-80s, and has talked about his gratitude for the redemption and a second chance to get his life straightened out and make it count. By all accounts he became very disciplined and purposeful, and copmletely changed his approach to life. Perhaps this helps explain why as President and afterward he has always conducted himself with humility, sobriety, discipline, restraint, and the overused "class."

He didn't complain or whine about the circumstances or monumental challenges he faced. He didn't even defend himself from the eight-year (and ongoing) barrage of attacks, insults, and calumnies from Democrats. His only focus was on trying to do what he thought best for the country. Those who are forgiven much . . ..

Contrast Obama. We'll give him a pass on his drug use (and continued smoking). Obama doesn't have a trace of humility
about him. He is the soul of arrogance and entitlement. He campaigned as if for Messiah, literally promising that his election would be the day "the oceans stopped rising" and the day "we started" caring for children and the elderly. His hubris and self-absorption are so far beyond any previous President that there really is no one to whom we can compare him.

Obama supposedly embraced the Christianity of Jeremiah Wright, in circumstances that coincided with his community organizing and political ambitions, but there is no suggestion that it changed anything about him. Barack was pretty much perfect already, so what's to change? Years later, he disinvite Wright from appearing at his candidacy announcement, then later say Wright was like an uncle whom he couldn't ever disown, only to later throw him under the bus and say he wasn't the Jeremiah Wright he knew. Suddenly, he had never heard of Wright's offensive rhetoric in the church Obama supposedly attended for many years. That's Obama loyalty.

Obama doesn't really seem to be grateful for anything. We heard this mentality echoed by Michele during the campaign, when she talked about what a "mean" country this is and said that Barack's nomination was "the first time" she was ever proud of her country. As Krauthammer has said, Obama is the first President who seems to view the Presidency as actually too small for himself.

He constantly mocks and scorns his opponents in a way no President in memory has done. He constantly lectures and hectors us, and whines, complains and blames like no other President has ever done. For all his arrogance and Promethean pretensions, he is the incredible shrinking President. The more he complains and lectures and blames, the smaller and more petty he gets.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Obama versus Bush the drunkard, Part II:

Yes, it's clear that Obama is not someone with any sense of redemption in his life. He has no sense of being a flawed human being or of being given any undeserved chance in life or in office. Having been elected President, he is just enjoying perhaps a small part of his due as a born and destined world-historical leader. First Citizen of the World.

Perhaps this is all part, too, of why his approval ratings have plummetted and the public is, after less than two years, beginning to look back fondly at how bad old W conducted himself compared to this petulant and petty super-elitist. Perhaps it helps explain why the public has already largely tuned out his whining and hectoring. Why, suddenly, this supposedly great orator just sounds like a nasally and spiteful complainer. He sounds like a third grade teacher's pet always trying to blame someone else, and takes no responsibility for his own failures.

Yes, that is a huge contrast between W and O.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Do Koch-Head get paid by the word?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

looks like the right today slept through Nov 2008 and haven't gotten the mnessage yet that their side lost. So sad. Why are we talking about POTUS resumes, do you think somehow that somehow changes your 2008 loss? By the way I am proud of the folks I hung out with in high school, they weren't questionable kids who believed in witchcraft, they are leaders today here in Houston, District Judges, City Councilmen, brain surgeons, partners in major lawfirms and accounting firms and my closest friend a CEO in an intl consulting firm who were in the natl honor society and winning natl debate competitions, and I am not running for dog catcher. How about the conservatives here; I doubt many of you had high school friends like Ms. O'Odonnell. If the right wants to obsess about resumes today then why aren't we discussing Ms. Odonnell's, the candidate they are so proud of?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

"I was simply challenging your claim that Bush's resume was somehow "less" Obama's. That seems absurd on its face, regardless of one's judgment of either Bush's or Obama's ultimate performance on the job"

Well, of course, judging someone's worthiness for the job (beyond any constitutional qualifications) is entirely subjective. You are entitled to your opinion - and I, mine. You term it "absurd" - well, I find it absurd that you quickly dismiss the Harvard Law Grad and instead choose the fella whose only experience with law was during his arrest for DUI.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Wow, quarterback, that's the most words we've seen anyone use to call Obama "uppity".

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 20, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Truth hurts, huh? At least I have a rational argument to make, unlike your vacuous imprecations and Soros-bot talking points.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Nice race-baiting deflection, jenn. And totally predictable.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_morning_plum_93.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 20, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

If by "rational" you mean "personal opinion, unbuttressed by fact", sure.

I do have to say it's somewhat amusing to see you refer to Bush's "circumstances or monumental challenges". Yeah, being the son of a millionaire congressman, CIA director, and vice president must have been quite a struggle.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 20, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

It's not a race-baiting deflection. Every freaking paragraph you wrote refers to Obama as arrogan, lacking in humility, being full of hubris, etc etc etc.

I don't know how anyone would equate that with "uppity". Unless, of course, they know the language.

Nice try, racist.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 20, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

It's not a race-baiting deflection. Every freaking paragraph you wrote refers to Obama as arrogan, lacking in humility, being full of hubris, etc etc etc.

I don't know how anyone would equate that with "uppity". Unless, of course, they know the language.

Nice try, racist.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 20, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

"Perhaps this helps explain why as President and afterward he has always conducted himself with humility, sobriety, discipline, restraint, and the overused "class."

Have you been up drinking all night? "Class"? Really? Giving a back rub to the Chancellor of Germany indicates "class"? Does challenging "Bring it On" to our enemies show discipline or restraint? What about "Mission Accomplished"? Does calling yourself "the decider" show "humility"?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

"Yeah, being the son of a millionaire congressman, CIA director, and vice president must have been quite a struggle."

He faced the Clinton recession and 911 and a viciously partisan opposition, among other things. Most people who aren't 100% unthinking partisan smart alecks probably would consider that he faced some challenges.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

"Nice try, racist."

We know the leftie schtick already: no criticizing a black official for arrogance or self absorption, cuz that's like racist!

Everyone is like totally not able to see that you can't answer the substance.

As always, the first person to cry racism is most likely the only racist around. Why is it that you don't think Obama should be held to the same standards as everyone else? Hmm?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

"At least I have a rational argument to make, unlike your vacuous imprecations and Soros-bot talking points."

Yes, you're all about rational arguments. I particularly liked your use of the term "goof" yesterday. It was a scintillating and reasoned argument. Now I can see why you heaped so much praise on the D'Souza article.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

yea the "Clinton recession" the one that created a Budget SURPLUS and 23 million jobs that was replaced with no job growth, negative markets(-.01% b/w 2001 and 2008), deregulation by SEC Chairman Cox and Sept 15, 2008. You might remember that proud Bush day that brought the US economy to the precipise of 1929. Conservatives love to rewrite history here.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

"viciously partisan opposition"

Yes, I remember that. His approval rating was, what?...like 90%? Vicious. And then I remember when all the partisan opposition banded together and voted to stop the Iraq War. That was AWESOME.

"Most people who aren't 100% unthinking partisan smart alecks probably would consider that he faced some challenges."

Are you the least self-aware person on the planet?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

s'cat,

If you have an argument you want to make, go ahead and make it. A couple anecdotes of ambiguous relevance don't do that.

And, yes, only a goof would have posted the question cmc did. That wasn't an "argument." It was an observation. The comparison of Bush and Obama is an argument, one you apparently can't refute and so can't abide.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

btw, this:

"Now I can see why you heaped so much praise on the D'Souza article."

Is just another example of your casual disregard for facts. I've done nothing of the kind.

"Are you the least self-aware person on the planet?"

Is that the best you can say to defend your apparent claim that W faced no challenges as President? Did it escape your self awareness that you are the one avoiding the substance and defending an assinine position with insults? Are insults all you can do?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

"Conservatives love to rewrite history here."

It is a fact that Clinton left a recession and the tech bubble burst. If he "created" all the jobs, he also left the recession.

There never was a budget surplus. Look up that actual numbers.


And, you know, we've gone over this endlessly with rukidding and other liberals, but it's amazing that you liberals claim on the one had that Reagan destroyed and permanently crippled the economy by cutting the top marginal tax rate from 70%, but you credit Clinton with single-handedly "creating" 23 million jobs while keeping tax over 30% below pre-Reagan rates.

You liberals collectively have the worst case of cognitive dissonance imaginable.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Koch-Heads DO get paid by the word.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

My point was, is, and remains: people who stay drunk the first 20 years of adulthood miss out on maturing the way that people who DON'T stay drunk through the first 20 years of adulthood do. You come in here and throw around all this crap about W's "glowing" resume, which completely glosses over the fact that he didn't have one before the age of 40 thanks to stumbling through life in a drunken stupor.

As for "class", I can't imagine anything "classier" than a guy who sent young men to their deaths for no reason making a big funny over the fact that the lies he told to send them to their deaths have caught up with him. "Nope, no WMDs here, either." Yuk yuk yuk. Of course, at the time he was telling his little "joke", ONLY something like 1500 - 2000 young Americans had died as a result of his lies. Now that the number is over doubled, I'm sure that just makes the joke that much funnier, amirite?

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 20, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

"My point was, is, and remains: people who stay drunk the first 20 years of adulthood miss out on maturing the way that people who DON'T stay drunk through the first 20 years of adulthood do."

Your point was just another childish insult.

Obama is the least mature President in memory and perhaps ever. He is a constant complainer, whiner, and blamer. The way he ridicules and refuses responsibility is the epitome of immaturity.

"As for "class", I can't imagine anything "classier" than a guy who sent young men to their deaths for no reason making a big funny over the fact that the lies he told to send them to their deaths have caught up with him."

I forgot, you are a completely unserious person. I don't know why I am wasting time on you and won't waste more. I leave you to stew in your own hatred.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

yea there were not 23 million jobs created b/w 1992 and 2000 that was all a left wing conspiracy. By the way I was in Texas when Bush was governor and saw him squander a multi billion dollar rainy day fund just like he did as POTUS. And Clinton was responsible for the appointment of SEC Chairman Cox and Sept 15, 2008 never happened, right? Apparently you are unaware who was POTUS on Sept 15, 2008 and no it wasn't Bill Cinton.

this from the left wing Bloomberg.com:

"Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a federal budget surplus of $127 billion." The Iraq war and the tax cuts kicked in in 2001 under guess who's watch?

And does anyone know whether Elizabeth Montgomery will be campaigning for Ms. o'Donnell soon?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Shorter quarterback: "Even I can't defend W's crass "joke" about missing WMDs, so I'll pretend that I'm too OFFENDED to even try."

Yes, run away, little boy.

As for alchoholics lacking maturity, I take it you've never known one. Anyone who has knows that what I'm saying is true. A 40-year-old alchoholic is every bit as responsible as an 18 year old. Were it otherwise, he'd no longer be an alchoholic.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 20, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Jenn:

"My point was, is, and remains: people who stay drunk the first 20 years of adulthood miss out on maturing the way that people who DON'T stay drunk through the first 20 years of adulthood do."

That doesn't make them less "mature" or somehow deficiently "mature" once they cease being an alcoholic. Indeed, the experience could well build character and maturity in a way that a person who hasn't had to conquer such personal demons might never know.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 20, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"That wasn't an "argument." It was an observation. "

Yes, I know how you operate. Only you are allowed to make emotional, knee-jerk "observations"; anyone else who makes an "observation" is immediately attacked for "vacuous imprecations and Soros-bot talking points."

"I've done nothing of the kind. "

I agree. You simply referred to the book as possibly "interesting". My bad.

"Is that the best you can say to defend your apparent claim that W faced no challenges as President?"

I never claimed that. That it's "apparent" to you is not relevant. It's not my fault that you see no contradictions in your position.

"Did it escape your self awareness that you are the one avoiding the substance and defending an assinine position with insults? "

I never claimed otherwise. Just making an "observation".

For you to sit there and say that Bush faced "challenges" and should be cut slack by his detractors while completely ignoring the "challenges" that Obama faces is laughable on its face. You are either completely intellectually bankrupt or lacking any self-awareness. Either way your statement is entirely unserious.

It's also utterly laughable that you opine for substance after your two post shallow armchair psychiatric evaluation of Obama. You should hook up with STRF - he likes to pretend he's a climate scientist.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"Indeed, the experience could well build character and maturity in a way that a person who hasn't had to conquer such personal demons might never know."

Good point. However, that sort of character maturity and growth typically comes from years of evaluation, self-reflection, treatment, and therapy. Bush quit cold turkey with no help from any sort of 12 step program - and while I have no idea how much or the type of "counseling" he received from his religious mentors specifically targeted at his addiction, I think it is not unreasonable to have some concerns about unresolved issues.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

""Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a federal budget surplus of $127 billion." "

The media has been full of these false reports, mouthing false Dem talking points. Go luck up the actual figures. There was no surplus. Not even for one year.

"Yes, I know how you operate. Only you are allowed to make emotional, knee-jerk "observations";"

No, I just don't call observations arguments.

"I never claimed that. That it's "apparent" to you is not relevant."

I said he didn't complain as President about the challenges he faced.

You "responded" with snark that it must have been tough being a child of privilege.

So now you are just admitting that you tried to evade the issue with a smarmy and irrelevant put down.

"For you to sit there and say that Bush faced "challenges" and should be cut slack by his detractors while completely ignoring the "challenges" that Obama faces is laughable on its face."

It's laughable for you to claim I said anything of the sort. I simply said Bush did not complain and whine and blame, as it seems to be all Obama knows.


"Shorter quarterback: "Even I can't defend W's crass "joke" about missing WMDs, so I'll pretend that I'm too OFFENDED to even try."

Yes, run away, little boy."

No, I don't take offense at your nasty and stupid comments. I meant exactly what I said: You are unserious. Why? Because rather than making any substantive case contradicting my argument, you plucked a single ill-conceived attempt at self-deprecating humor out of eight years, and repeated idiotic blather about Bush lying to go to war. Those aren't thoughts of a serious person. They are thoughts of a partisan hater.

Note that Obama, in contrast, is completely incapable of self-deprecating humor or graciousness to critics. His idea of self-deprecating humor is more attacks on his foes.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 20, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse


definetely,it is very true that major brands always give out free samples on health products check out http://bit.ly/dry4WG tell your friends also

Posted by: colinfarrell22 | September 22, 2010 3:25 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company